Redefining marriage opens floodgates

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel has recently announced its official editorial position that "the time has come to allow gay marriage."

The Editorial Board argues that the national gay marriage movement successes in Massachusetts and California should now also give way in Florida.

While it reached the wrong conclusion, the Sun-Sentinel was at least intellectually honest in its analysis about what the debate in Florida over Amendment 2 is all about. In contrast, our campaign opponents are trying to cover up their real motive - to advance special rights for gay-identified persons by dishonestly scaring senior citizens using tortured arguments that "benefits" will be taken away. A "Yes" vote on Amendment 2 does one thing and one thing alone: It defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It does not prohibit the government or private companies from extending benefits to anyone.

The Sun-Sentinel should be applauded for focusing on what is the real question at issue on Amendment 2: whether or not homosexual marriage is in the best interest of children, families and the common good of society.

Sadly, the paper summarily dismisses any concerns for the protection of children and families by arguing for what it feels is a more important interest in "equal rights." Yet the problem with this argument is glaring. If we permit same-sex couples to marry, on what rational, logical, consistent basis do we then deny marriage to the polygamists in Texas? The group-marriage proponents in Oregon? And every other form of aberrant relationship that comes to the courthouse demanding "marriage rights?"

If the only two criteria for marriage is love and commitment, then why stop at two persons? Why not allow groups and multiple marriage arrangements? Shouldn't all special sexual interest groups also have "equal rights?" Well, the Sun-Sentinel wrote, "it is time to extend equal rights to all" but likely did not consider the logical conclusion of this statement. Most people don't.

Ideas have consequences. And the innocent-sounding idea of gay marriage has consequences that are more far reaching to the transformation of culture and society than anyone would imagine. In Scandinavian counties where alternate marriage and unions flourish, the rates of co-habitation are skyrocketing. Couples opt for contacts instead of covenants, and the meaning and benefit that marriage brings to society and culture is diluted and weakened.

The truth is this: Everyone - not just homosexuals - has limitations on who they can marry. Gay activists do not want marriage. Marriage is already available to all those who meet the legal requirements. They want to redefine marriage and then force that definition upon the rest of society largely through unelected, unaccountable activist judges acting outside the scope of their limited role. This is precisely what occurred in California - and what Amendment 2 seeks to prevent in Florida. We believe the people - and not judges - should decide the future of marriage.

Once you unlock the door to the common sense of natural marriage, there is really no end to the aberrant forms of sexual preferences that will then also be suing to demand marriage rights. And if marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. Most amendments do something new. Amendment 2 only protects something timeless. Something precious and beautiful. The time has come for us to stand up and protect the human institutions that have sustained civilization since the beginning of time. For children, for family and for the common good of society, please vote "Yes" on Amendment 2.

John Stemberger is an Orlando lawyer and state chairman of Yes2Marriage.org.